Are you ready to be a PR practitioner?

Getting aquainted with the PR profession I asked myself a very simple question-What are the qualities of a PR-specialist? Do I personally have them to get success? Today,listening to the Depeche Mode "Try walking in my shoes" song, I came back to that question.

Well, at first glance, the answer is simple:

• ability to get on well with people
• openness
• readiness
• self-discipline
• high intelligence and defiantely
• sense of humor.

PR-experts always communicate with people of different professions and different temperaments, so we are required to keep ourselves up, be prepared for unconventional solutions and instantaneous change of tactics.
But there are "hidden rocks"  as well. PR is not a funny "fluffy"job. This is routine, difficult, very stressful and rigorous activity with irregular working time. And often the qualities like

• calmness
• moderation
• perseverance come to the foreground.

Not to be lost in the cycle of constant calls and letters, articles and press releases, interviews and press conferences emotions must fall aside. So how to develop these qualities?

What I think is :

• First of all, the very main point is to love your profession and to respect the people with whom you have to communicate during the work-time.

• Secondly,in conflict situations try "walking in other person's shoes" and maintain a constant open dialogue,be empathic and judicial.

The Social Media Revolution - is our life still private?

Social Media...Web 2.0...Facebook...Twitter...Google...

They haven't always been a part of our lives, however today it's impossible to imagine our lives without those platforms...

Even if u don't Tweet or use Facebook,you still use Google.

What will you tell a friend who doesn't know something? "Well,Google it".

And that's directly what most of us do.

However have anyone ever thought about the principle of Google work?

Actually Google was created more than 10 years ago by Larry Page and Sergey Brin.

It all began us a University project but very soon they understood that with the development of the Internet and appearance of numerous webpages, there should appear an engine that will arrange all the information in a logical way. And definately provide users with that information when needed. That's how Google was born.

However, obviously, Google is not a tiny room with one person who operates the engines-that are the massive headquarters all over the world. But that wasn't always. In the beginning Larry nad Sergey had to find out how to cover the expences for Google: all the equipment and stuff. 

The main principle of Google-it's free. 

So how make money out of service that is free for everyone?

The advertising came up.

Have you ever noticed that social media platforms know exactly what you want? Facebook or Vkontakte (Russian social network) know exactly what links to offer you. 

At the times I didn't know how those engines work, I was amazed and surprised how these platforms find out what I want? Is it a miracle?

Well there is no miracle at all. The search engines are optimised for people. 

How they work?

The are specifically tailored for your needs as they actually collect all the information you provide them with.

"How can it be?"you can ask. "I don't give them any of my personal information".

It's not true. Everytime you type the words in the search engine like Google, it remembers your words and next time shows you the pages that can be similar to your usual requests.

Some of you can be incredibly happy with that,however let's think about our personal identity.

Are we unique now? If the search engine want's you to be like many other people like you, doesn't that mean that you lose yourself?

That philosophy of masses is very convinient for  the people who want to sell us something.

Many ears ago, when there was no internet, we used to find out all the necessery information ourselves.

We didn't rely on the search engines. Probably that is why we still have our individuality. But what about the next generations?

Another question to rise is the question of privacy.

One day the huge corporation name AOL revealed all the Google searches of it's users for a three month period.

All the names of users were in numerical code,that created the visibility of privacy.

However one journalist from the NY Times decided to find out-is it possible to find a person just knowing the numerical code and the tag words?

You know what? He found a person just within 4 (!!!) hours only with a help of telephone and internet.

What does that small episode show?

Well,obviously,that there is no Internet privacy at all.

Choosing the world of social media, we subscribe to lose our own identity and privacy. 

Is internet access a good price to lose such important things we have?

Well it's up to you to decide use social networks or not.However you should always remember that once you use Internet you're not alone anymore. The question is - what is the size of your private life part you want to share with the rest of the world?

Here are the additional material for you to watch:

• How cookies are used to tailor the online advertising?

• Extremely interesting program of the BBC "The Virtual Revolution-the cost of free"

The Virtual Revolution Website

Here is one of the episodes you may like :

• How Google uses your information

• You may as well like this : 

  How to: Remove personal information from Google search

  
  
  
  

Social Marketing - a marketing for good?

Before talking about Social Marketing, it's better say what it is all about.
Lovely Wiki comes to help: "Social marketing is the systematic application of marketing, along with other concepts and techniques, to achieve specific behavioral goals for a social good."


Here is the rest of the article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_marketing


The term itself appeared in 1971. It happened after Philip Kotler and Gerald Zaltman published "Social Marketing: An Approach to Planned Social Change". 
The main aims are that those ideas used in marketing can be applied not just to sell goods, but to change behaviors and attitudes as well.


Such areas as environment,health,protection need people's behavioral changes.The main goal is to sell ideas to make positive changes in people attitudes towards social problems, so targeted correctly the message then bringe harvest of a long term positive change.


The grounds of social marketing stand on 4 "P's":

 

• Product - The social marketing "product" is not necessarily a physical offering. A continuum of products exists, ranging from tangible, physical products (e.g., condoms), to services (e.g., medical exams), practices (e.g., breastfeeding, a heart-healthy diet) and finally, more intangible ideas (e.g., environmental protection).
• Price - Refers to what the consumer must do in order to obtain the social marketing product. This cost may be monetary, or it may instead require the consumer to give up intangibles, such as time or effort, or to risk embarrassment and disapproval. 
• Place - describes the way that the product reaches the consumer. For a tangible product, this refers to the distribution system--including the warehouse, trucks, sales force, retail outlets where it is sold, or places where it is given out for free. For an intangible product, place is less clear-cut, but refers to decisions about the channels through which consumers are reached with information or training. This may include doctors' offices, shopping malls, mass media vehicles or in-home demonstrations. 
• Promotion - Promotion consists of the integrated use of advertising, public relations, promotions, media advocacy, personal selling and entertainment vehicles. The focus is on creating and sustaining demand for the product. 

There are as well additional "P's" of Social Marketing:

• Publics--Social marketers often have many different audiences that their program has to address in order to be successful. "Publics" refers to both the external and internal groups involved in the program. External publics include the target audience, secondary audiences, policymakers, and gatekeepers, while the internal publics are those who are involved in some way with either approval or implementation of the program.
• Partnership--Social and health issues are often so complex that one agency can't make a dent by itself. You need to team up with other organizations in the community to really be effective. You need to figure out which organizations have similar goals to yours--not necessarily the same goals--and identify ways you can work together.
• Policy--Social marketing programs can do well in motivating individual behavior change, but that is difficult to sustain unless the environment they're in supports that change for the long run. Often, policy change is needed, and media advocacy programs can be an effective complement to a social marketing program.
• Purse Strings- Most organizations that develop social marketing programs operate through funds provided by sources such as foundations, governmental grants or donations. This adds another dimension to the strategy development-namely, where will you get the money to create your program?

Taken from this webpage - http://www.social-marketing.com/Whatis.html

One of the most important role players in all that issues are the audinces. That is why it's extremely important to target them correctly as well as choose the correct type of target audience.In this case (as in many other cases) research is sesential.
The problem is that many people don't even know about the existing problems till somebody tells them. Thus social marketing as well leads and educational role.


Here is an example of the social marketing campaign to make my thoughts more visible.
This video tells about the problem of immigrants and their slavery when they move from their native countries. This problem is timing not only in Europe or Asia, but in Russia as well.
We have illegal slavery markets as well as almost all of workers who build the houses,roads,clean the streets etc are illigal immigrants.
Education of population on the existing problem can raise the awareness and make significant changes in the problem.

Social Marketing can play a significant role in changing attitides and behaviors. However some issues need the Government interference.

This can be a hard task either for the government,people and companies.

However it is always worth risking as the end result will bring benefits to everyone.

The Webcast for you to enjoy - Social Media for Business

Social Media plays an extremely important aspect of PR and any other life these days.
Here is my Webcast,as a part of the University of Westminster assignment.
Social Media is very important for businesses and brands as well.
I hope this video will clear the question of what social media exactly is and how it works and helps to make a business or brand a number one activity.
Watch and enjoy.

Spin and Trust in Political PR

"Whoever controls the Media, controls the mind" - Jim Morrison


The last session we were discussing political PR and spin-doctoring in this context.
The film we were showed tells about Alastair Campbell and his work during Tony Blair was in duty.
Alastair Campbell is actually known as a real spin doctor.
Not going deep into details I just express some of my emotions after the film.


First of all-I've never known that actually every step of politicians is measured: where to stand while photoshooting, what to say, how to move. Everything is written by political PR people.
I was surprised that absolutely everything is counted.
We saw an episode where Vladimir Putin (ex-president of Russia) arrived at Downing Street 10.
Lot's of people(including Alastair Campbell) were discussing every step of 2 politicians.
Finally Putin messed all the plans (haha as usual) not arrivivg to the discussed point of photoshooting.
Second what is not so surprising but still left strong emotions in me is that Campbell held press-conferences for the journalists twice a day-in the morning and what is more important in the evening.
Again telling everything from the position of a strict PR person that atrces every small step.
He said what to write and what not, which questions he will answer and which not.
Everything professionally,but so strictly.


We were also shown a piece of a press conference where one of the journalists was to ask Blair unfavourable questions.
Campbell knew that(it's amazing just how such PR people can know everything happening around).
During the conference he just didn't give the chance for that journalist to ask even a short question.This guy was totally ignored.


That is how political PR works: PR people try to control everything (media,journalists,their questions). And try to present the story in a better "light".


However being a professional it's hard to believe that Alastair Campbell got his name of a "spin-doctor" without any reasons.
Watching the film I began to understand from where the roots grow.


Months before working on a debate on famous PR profs, my responsibility was to find as much information about Alastair Campbell as I could.
And believe me he is not a saint at all.
Just remember the Iraq Dossier when Campbell gave an incorrect fabricated information. That later became a reason for public panic as well as a suicide of an official of the Ministry of Defence.
You still think that Campbell is such a good man?
No he is not, but,abruptly, he knew what he was doing.
It's hard to help rule the country and mislead so many people for almost 6 years, if u don't know what PR is and if you are not a professional.


However such people as Campbell undermine public trust in political PR.
It's not a surprise that people tend to think that Politics is all about spin doctoring.
Actually political PR experts play an important role in connection between the government and people.


It's not just PR people to blame but also the politicians who fail to do their things right.


Going back to spin doctors I can once again repeat that not all the political PR professionals are like Alastair Campbell. Trying to spin the information and control the media spin doctors can face troubles,when the media stops being interested in what they say and becoms intersted in themselves.
The same happened to Alastair Campbell.


World is so vague these days so I leave the ability to decide whether all the political PR guys are spin doctors or not -to you.
Political PR is not always clean and some actions should be critisised,but that doesn't mean (like in any field) that it as all dirty from head to toes.


P.S.
Here are the Alastair Campbell Blog - http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/


The example of Campbell spin on Youtube

Youtube Funny Parody on Political Spin

NGO's and the rise of activism

The definition "third sector" is a synonym to the NGO's. 

Not going very deep into details (I hope the Wikipedia link will answer most of the questions) i just can say thet this sector is one of the largest.

For example only in Russia there are 277,000. 

All of them play important roles:some more,some less.

There are bright examples of International NGO's that operate globally like UNESCO or World Health Orhanisation.

Their aims to maintain good relationships through all the countries in terms of public health and culture.

However NGO's do not limit their responsibilities just in one field.

There are many examples of NGO organisations that operate in terms of other global issues like energy and other resources consumption, food consumption, environmental issues and protection, distribution of  resources among different nations.

It's not a surprise that holding significant power in their hands NGO's pay huge loads of attention to the PR.  They now hire good PR practitioners to help them achieve their goals.

Actions can be different: stunts,flash-mobs.polls,surveys,celebrity participation and many more.

In this case PRofs in the organisations should always be all there.

With the rise of the NGO's activism and people's trust in NGO's power big corporations (and not only just big ones,and not only corporations)  PR practitioners should create special plans or actions in case NGO's try to hit on the organisation.

Reading the Russian Laws when I was writing this post I came up with thoughts that Russia has  so  many NGO's,but they actually cannot really influence the Government and it's policies.

First of all, Russian law concerning the NGO's was adopted not such a long time ago.

Secondly, Russia is an "amazing" king of country, where the Government is everything-"its Tzar and the God and all the Saints" in one body.

What I came up with reading the law, is that it is constructed in a very tricky way (as usualy Russian Government does). It depicts all the do's and don't of NGO's in Russia, providing them ephemeral freedom-however if we look deeper in the law it makes so many obstacles (oficially supported by Consitution) that none of the NGO's will ever affect any body or member of the Government.

At least not the international ones.

Actually, during my not so long (but actually not so short) life I've never heard of any case when NGO's succeded in reaching it's goals fully if there is Russian Government on the way.

Yes,we have no freedom here.

Again.

Sad.

Here is a short video about NGO's

Identifying"Public" in Public Relations-who are Stakeholders?

When PR talks about any action it makes it always says about  the "audience".
There are no actions made just for the sake of it, but that directly target  the "audience", "stakeholders", "publics".
Seems so natural,isn't it?
But if we look deeper in the issue-who are actually those stakeholders?
How to define them? How to orientate actions on them?
There is a whole bunch of questions that apper in the mind.


Well, first the term "stakeholders" appeared in 1963 and defined stakeholders as "those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist".
Actually this definition is too narrow.
Another definition that is now widely used and seems to be more relevant is the definition of Professor Freeman, given in 1984 in his book "Strategic Management:A stakeholder approach" (1984).
So the definition is "A stakeholder in an organization is (by its definition) any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization's objective".
There is one more definition made by Johnson and Scholes (2002): Stakeholders are those who have a stake or interest in a particular organisation, i.e. they depend on organisation to fulfill their own goals, and on whom,in turn, the organisation depends.


Professor Freeman talks about stakeholders

I prefer to agree with Professor Freeman,as I think that he detects relations between stakeholders and the organisation as double-sided,instead of Johnson and Scholes,who seem to make stakeholders the head of everything.
So, now the definition is clear.
But who can be a stakeholder?
There are several groups of stakeholders:

• Employees
• Trade Unions
• Financial Investors
• Customers
• Suppliers
• Distributors
• Local Community
• Local and General Government
• Industry groups
• Media

However the term"stakeholders" is often interchangable with wide term "audience". Is it actually possible to interchange these two trems?

Well the difference is not so huge.

Grunig and Hunt(1984) say that "publics are stakeholders that face a problem or have an issue with an orgaisation". 

However here it is necessary to say that Ralph Tench and Liz Yeomans agree with Grunig but the same time describe the difference between "audience" and "stakeholders".

They describe a kind of "drift" from stakeholders into publics, when the problem or issue arises. And thus stakeholders form general public and can influence and affect the company.

Like in the example of McDonalds when customers concerned with their obesity organised campaigns for healthier food.

Our favourite Grunig and now Repper(1992) also say that relationships with stakeholders help to create stable,long-term relationships that are actually extremely important fot the company.


There are different approaches of mapping stakeholders.
Here are 3 of them:

• Bernstein’s wheel 

• Esman’s linkages theory

• Power-interest matrix

The last but not the least goes the Situational Theory of Publics by Grunig and Hunt (1984).

I want to tell more about it. It seems to be a very good example of mapping the public as Grunig and Hunt predict that public are not just passive users of information, but they can be really active: change their decisions and thus move from one group to another.

So Grunig and Hunt divided public (we remember they were more for "public" than "stakeholders") into: 

1. Non Public
2.  Latent Public 
3. Active Public 
4. Aware Public

So who is who though?

• Non Public - as seen from the name these are people not interested in your organisation. Your organisation doesn't affect them as well as they just don't influence on your organisation
• Latent Public - those who probably will be affected by your organisation or will affect you, but just don't know it yet. They are very probable of becoming "active" or "aware" public
• Active public - is the most active (ha-ha really obvious) public that will participate as actively (again) as they can in the life of your organisation. The would like to know who,what,where,when and  why in your organisation. They are really interested in what is going on.
• Aware Public - those who know that they are affected by you. They try to get information from you as an organisation.

This Theory of Grunig and Hunt is really a practical one and can be easily used in real life.

So here is an overview of stakeholders now it's for you to decide which theory and ideas you like most.

I've made my choice now it's up to you!